I'm interested in conversations about and I want to talk about
Know exactly what you want?
Show search

Notification

Error

Neurosafe Technique or Retzius Sparring Technique

User
Posted 09 Mar 2025 at 12:21

Hello, I am 47 years old and will undergo robotic surgery for gleason 3+4=7 prostate cancer. The tumor was reported to be localized and PET showed no spread. I found two experienced surgeons in my country. One uses the Retzius Sparring technique and the other uses the Neurosafe technique. If I had to choose only one of these two techniques, which one should I choose? Thank you.

User
Posted 09 Mar 2025 at 15:06

They are not alternatives - they are different things, and as far as I know, they can be done together.

Retzius sparing is a different way of dissecting out the prostate which avoids damage to an anatomical area called the Cave of Retzius. This tends to give a faster recovery of urinary continence after the operation, but 6-12 months later, Retropubic (standard) RALP patients have caught up. Another significant factor is it tends to be only the most experienced surgeons who do Retzius sparing RALP.

Neurosafe (also called Frozen Sections) is a technique for avoiding positive margins, and may improve the chances of nerve sparing without increasing the risk of positive margins. Positive margins are where not all the cancer was cut out, and without Neurosafe, it's not normally discovered until after the operation and it's too late to fix it in the operation, and radiotherapy is likely to be required. Neurosafe enables the positive margin to be seen while you're still in theatre, enabling it to be cut away.

There's an alternative procedure using a Histolog Scanner which does the same job as Neurosafe, which some hospitals are just starting to use. (It doesn't require the Histopathologist to be in/near the operating theatre, as it works across the Internet.)

As to which to chose if you can only have one, I think this depends if faster return of urinary continence (Retzius sparing) is more important to you than reducing the risk of needing salvage radiotherapy (Neurosafe). There are no guarantees either way though.

User
Posted 10 Mar 2025 at 08:56

I'm having RARP on 8/04 and spent a lot of time researching surgeons, locations and the different types of robotic machines. Andy is right, Retzius is offered by the surgeon and also possibly dependant on the robot he/she uses. Neurosafe can only be offered if facilities allow and the surgeon is prepared to do this. I'm fortunate in that living just outside London I have a wide choice. Interestingly I found that the Royal Marsden despite having latest equipment and a superb reputation doesn't offer Neurosafe. I'm off to central London where the surgeon will use the Da Vinci SP (Single Port) robot. One incision not multiple which makes initial recovery quicker although outcomes in the medium & longer term are the same. Good luck with your decisions, it's not easy. If you want more information on surgeons and locations please message me.

User
Posted 10 Mar 2025 at 12:06

As far as I know, the only hospital in the UK doing Neurosafe on the NHS is the Lister at Stevenage. Many hospitals do it privately, and some hospitals did it on the NHS as part of a blind trial in the past.

You might find more NHS hospitals offering Histolog scanning in the future, which is a different way to achieve the same thing. With the way NHS hospitals grow over time, having a histopathologist anywhere near an operating room is unlikely (often they aren't even on the same site) which makes Neurosafe unviable. The Histolog scanner allows the pathologist to be remote from the operating room.

Several of the Retzius Sparing urologists retired from the NHS over the last few years and now only work privately. I might guess this was because they were being fined by HMRC for their pensions and/or getting cheesed off with NHS admin. However, some hospitals do still have surgeons doing Retzius Sparing on the NHS.

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 11:03

Hello ozdes

I had the NeuroSAFE procedure back in Nov last year as part of my RARP, and it found a positive margin that they were able to remove there and then. The final histology report showed a negative margin after the resection. I was told initially that there was no sign of EPE and the cancer was contained. I didn’t have a PET scan, but my understanding is that PET scan can miss microscopic EPE. I am not medically trained and did my own research before my op, but the NeuroSAFE procedure did seem like a no brainer to me if it was available as a belt and braces approach to the primary goal of disease control. You can read my experiences here (https://community.prostatecanceruk.org/posts/t31069-a-new-diagnosis), I went into some detail about it all in the post on the 22nd of Dec. I hope it helps a little, and best of luck with it all.

Gus

User
Posted 09 Mar 2025 at 12:21

Hello, I am 47 years old and will undergo robotic surgery for gleason 3+4=7 prostate cancer. The tumor was reported to be localized and PET showed no spread. I found two experienced surgeons in my country. One uses the Retzius Sparring technique and the other uses the Neurosafe technique. If I had to choose only one of these two techniques, which one should I choose? Thank you.

User
Posted 09 Mar 2025 at 20:20

They are usually used together as retzius sparing approach is how the surgeon accesses the prostate. NeuroSAFE is an excellent process to check what’s been taken out doesn’t leave any cancer cells behind with a view to preserving nerve sparing in real time. So they compliment each other and surgeons tend to use them both together.

Edited by member 10 Mar 2025 at 10:49  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 10 Mar 2025 at 10:53

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member

I'm having RARP on 8/04 and spent a lot of time researching surgeons, locations and the different types of robotic machines. Andy is right, Retzius is offered by the surgeon and also possibly dependant on the robot he/she uses. Neurosafe can only be offered if facilities allow and the surgeon is prepared to do this. I'm fortunate in that living just outside London I have a wide choice. Interestingly I found that the Royal Marsden despite having latest equipment and a superb reputation doesn't offer Neurosafe. I'm off to central London where the surgeon will use the Da Vinci SP (Single Port) robot. One incision not multiple which makes initial recovery quicker although outcomes in the medium & longer term are the same. Good luck with your decisions, it's not easy. If you want more information on surgeons and locations please message me.

Best of luck on your surgery. Guys London Bridge is epic centre. Recommend taking a media box and long hdmi lead plus power leads then you can have your own choice tv. The food there is epic. 

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 06:35

I’d be tempted to ask the surgeon who has 3000+ procedures under their belt why they don’t use NeuroSAFE. It’s a fair question because it’s like flying blind without it. If there is a tool which adds visibility to a process, why wouldn’t you use it? It’s like night vision for surgery…..

Edited by member 25 Mar 2025 at 06:36  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 20:46

Interesting response. In around ~44% cases post surgery histology upgrades the cancer. I learnt the hard way as I’d had the latest tech 3T mpMRI and the spread was more extensive than shown in the images. Bit of an eye opener. With me NeuroSAFE showed suspicious margin so the surgeon took more tissue while I was open. Histology actually showed it was a false positive but thus far 5yrs post retzius RARP I’m PSA undetectable 🤞

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 17:55

Hi Adrian

Yes it does seem strange at first sight but if you look at the details only a very small proportion (less than 6%) of their total sample were deemed to be low risk.

This lends support to their suggestion that their low risk sample may not be representative of all low risk cancers since the proportion of all prostate cancers which are low risk must be much higher than that.

One of their tables also shows that the great majority of Grade 6 upgrades were to 3+4, which means that they might still have been able to continue on AS if they had opted for it.

Best wishes

Kevin

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 23:05

Hi Adrian,

When I initially saw this paper a few months back I too read it as 25% and then drilled into the data as advised by my consultant professor. It was quite shocking to see my stats were nearer 60% and as predicted upgraded to intermediate. Nothing more to add as I think KS25 has kindly covered all points. 

cheers

TG

Show Most Thanked Posts
User
Posted 09 Mar 2025 at 15:06

They are not alternatives - they are different things, and as far as I know, they can be done together.

Retzius sparing is a different way of dissecting out the prostate which avoids damage to an anatomical area called the Cave of Retzius. This tends to give a faster recovery of urinary continence after the operation, but 6-12 months later, Retropubic (standard) RALP patients have caught up. Another significant factor is it tends to be only the most experienced surgeons who do Retzius sparing RALP.

Neurosafe (also called Frozen Sections) is a technique for avoiding positive margins, and may improve the chances of nerve sparing without increasing the risk of positive margins. Positive margins are where not all the cancer was cut out, and without Neurosafe, it's not normally discovered until after the operation and it's too late to fix it in the operation, and radiotherapy is likely to be required. Neurosafe enables the positive margin to be seen while you're still in theatre, enabling it to be cut away.

There's an alternative procedure using a Histolog Scanner which does the same job as Neurosafe, which some hospitals are just starting to use. (It doesn't require the Histopathologist to be in/near the operating theatre, as it works across the Internet.)

As to which to chose if you can only have one, I think this depends if faster return of urinary continence (Retzius sparing) is more important to you than reducing the risk of needing salvage radiotherapy (Neurosafe). There are no guarantees either way though.

User
Posted 09 Mar 2025 at 20:20

They are usually used together as retzius sparing approach is how the surgeon accesses the prostate. NeuroSAFE is an excellent process to check what’s been taken out doesn’t leave any cancer cells behind with a view to preserving nerve sparing in real time. So they compliment each other and surgeons tend to use them both together.

Edited by member 10 Mar 2025 at 10:49  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 10 Mar 2025 at 08:56

I'm having RARP on 8/04 and spent a lot of time researching surgeons, locations and the different types of robotic machines. Andy is right, Retzius is offered by the surgeon and also possibly dependant on the robot he/she uses. Neurosafe can only be offered if facilities allow and the surgeon is prepared to do this. I'm fortunate in that living just outside London I have a wide choice. Interestingly I found that the Royal Marsden despite having latest equipment and a superb reputation doesn't offer Neurosafe. I'm off to central London where the surgeon will use the Da Vinci SP (Single Port) robot. One incision not multiple which makes initial recovery quicker although outcomes in the medium & longer term are the same. Good luck with your decisions, it's not easy. If you want more information on surgeons and locations please message me.

User
Posted 10 Mar 2025 at 09:43

Thank you very much for your answers. In that case, I think it is worth paying the additional fee for the Neurosafe method.

User
Posted 10 Mar 2025 at 10:53

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member

I'm having RARP on 8/04 and spent a lot of time researching surgeons, locations and the different types of robotic machines. Andy is right, Retzius is offered by the surgeon and also possibly dependant on the robot he/she uses. Neurosafe can only be offered if facilities allow and the surgeon is prepared to do this. I'm fortunate in that living just outside London I have a wide choice. Interestingly I found that the Royal Marsden despite having latest equipment and a superb reputation doesn't offer Neurosafe. I'm off to central London where the surgeon will use the Da Vinci SP (Single Port) robot. One incision not multiple which makes initial recovery quicker although outcomes in the medium & longer term are the same. Good luck with your decisions, it's not easy. If you want more information on surgeons and locations please message me.

Best of luck on your surgery. Guys London Bridge is epic centre. Recommend taking a media box and long hdmi lead plus power leads then you can have your own choice tv. The food there is epic. 

User
Posted 10 Mar 2025 at 12:06

As far as I know, the only hospital in the UK doing Neurosafe on the NHS is the Lister at Stevenage. Many hospitals do it privately, and some hospitals did it on the NHS as part of a blind trial in the past.

You might find more NHS hospitals offering Histolog scanning in the future, which is a different way to achieve the same thing. With the way NHS hospitals grow over time, having a histopathologist anywhere near an operating room is unlikely (often they aren't even on the same site) which makes Neurosafe unviable. The Histolog scanner allows the pathologist to be remote from the operating room.

Several of the Retzius Sparing urologists retired from the NHS over the last few years and now only work privately. I might guess this was because they were being fined by HMRC for their pensions and/or getting cheesed off with NHS admin. However, some hospitals do still have surgeons doing Retzius Sparing on the NHS.

User
Posted 24 Mar 2025 at 20:33

One of the two surgeons I met in my country has an experience of over 3000 surgeries. However, since there was no spread in PET PSMA, the tumor was local and the radiologist said you can protect the nerves, he will not apply the neurosafe method. The other surgeon will apply the neurosafe method, but his surgical experience is 1000 surgeries. I am very undecided about which surgeon to choose.

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 06:35

I’d be tempted to ask the surgeon who has 3000+ procedures under their belt why they don’t use NeuroSAFE. It’s a fair question because it’s like flying blind without it. If there is a tool which adds visibility to a process, why wouldn’t you use it? It’s like night vision for surgery…..

Edited by member 25 Mar 2025 at 06:36  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 08:26

I asked him this question. The radiologist they worked with reviewed the PSMA PET and MRI images. He said that there was no spread and the tumor was not close to the nerve. Therefore, he said that there was no need for frozen section. Now, should I choose this doctor who is very experienced (more than 3000 robotic surgeries) but does not perform frozen section, or the doctor who is less experienced (around 1000) but uses the neurosafe technique? It is a difficult decision for me. Also, this very experienced doctor said that he would perform nerve-sparing surgery and that I would not have any urinary incontinence or erection problems. His own results in young patients were like this. The less experienced doctor said that I would have urinary incontinence for 3 months and that it could continue for up to 1 year, and that I would have erection problems for the first 3 months and then it would slowly improve. Frankly, the experienced doctor is very confident. However, I am not sure if it is reliable in terms of cancer risk.

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 11:03

Hello ozdes

I had the NeuroSAFE procedure back in Nov last year as part of my RARP, and it found a positive margin that they were able to remove there and then. The final histology report showed a negative margin after the resection. I was told initially that there was no sign of EPE and the cancer was contained. I didn’t have a PET scan, but my understanding is that PET scan can miss microscopic EPE. I am not medically trained and did my own research before my op, but the NeuroSAFE procedure did seem like a no brainer to me if it was available as a belt and braces approach to the primary goal of disease control. You can read my experiences here (https://community.prostatecanceruk.org/posts/t31069-a-new-diagnosis), I went into some detail about it all in the post on the 22nd of Dec. I hope it helps a little, and best of luck with it all.

Gus

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 20:46

Interesting response. In around ~44% cases post surgery histology upgrades the cancer. I learnt the hard way as I’d had the latest tech 3T mpMRI and the spread was more extensive than shown in the images. Bit of an eye opener. With me NeuroSAFE showed suspicious margin so the surgeon took more tissue while I was open. Histology actually showed it was a false positive but thus far 5yrs post retzius RARP I’m PSA undetectable 🤞

User
Posted 25 Mar 2025 at 21:28

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member

Interesting response. In around ~44% cases post surgery histology upgrades the cancer.

This research states only about 25% are upgraded, 15% are downgraded and 60% are unaltered.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6798468/

A total of 17,598 patients met full inclusioncriteria. Absolute concordance between initial biopsy and pathological grade was 58.9% (n = 10,364), whilst upgrade and downgrade rates were 25.5% (n = 4489) and 15.6% (n = 2745) respectively.

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 10:30

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member

Interesting response. In around ~44% cases post surgery histology upgrades the cancer.

This research states only about 25% are upgraded, 15% are downgraded and 60% are unaltered.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6798468/

A total of 17,598 patients met full inclusioncriteria. Absolute concordance between initial biopsy and pathological grade was 58.9% (n = 10,364), whilst upgrade and downgrade rates were 25.5% (n = 4489) and 15.6% (n = 2745) respectively.

This is a great paper that my surgeon prof refers to. Note the numbers associated with upgrade from low->intermediate grade.

Upgrade rate was highest in those with D’Amico low risk compared with intermediate and high-risk disease (55.7% versus 19.1 and 24.3% respectively, P < 0.001)”

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 12:47

Hi TechGuy.

I don't want to appear pedantic 🙂, but your comment of  'In around  44% cases post surgery histology upgrades the cancer' didn't specify it refered to low grade cancer. I read it, as 44% of all post surgery histology is upgraded, when this is clearly not the case.

I appreciate that low grade cancer is more likely to be upgraded than intermediate or high risk cancer. But almost 75% of all post op histology is accurate or undergraded.

I didn't want people, whatever their cancer grade, being fearful that there was almost a fifty fifty chance of it being a higher grade. (If you get my drift 🙂) 

 

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 16:49

It looks to me that the actual figure for upgrading of low risk cancer is 56%. The 44% is the percentage that are not upgraded.

This is a high figure and the authors are careful to point out that it is higher than has been found in other studies. They suggest that one reason for this is that the low-risk group in their sample may not be representative of all low-risk prostate cancers because more and more men with Gleason 6 are going on Active Surveillance. This means that the ones who have a prostatectomy are likely to include a disproportionate number with "other high risk features such as large volume tumour".

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 17:34

Hi KS25.

Good to see you again.

I'm not a mathematician, but for low grade cancer biopsies to be deemed nearly 60% inaccurate and later upgraded. Yet all cancer grades are deemed 75% accurate or under graded, doesn't make much sense. Unless the low grade cancers have been incorrectly evaluated or disportionately represented to all other grades?

Perhaps the old adage, "Lies, damned lies and statistics" is correct. 🙂

Edited by member 26 Mar 2025 at 17:41  | Reason: Typo

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 17:55

Hi Adrian

Yes it does seem strange at first sight but if you look at the details only a very small proportion (less than 6%) of their total sample were deemed to be low risk.

This lends support to their suggestion that their low risk sample may not be representative of all low risk cancers since the proportion of all prostate cancers which are low risk must be much higher than that.

One of their tables also shows that the great majority of Grade 6 upgrades were to 3+4, which means that they might still have been able to continue on AS if they had opted for it.

Best wishes

Kevin

User
Posted 26 Mar 2025 at 23:05

Hi Adrian,

When I initially saw this paper a few months back I too read it as 25% and then drilled into the data as advised by my consultant professor. It was quite shocking to see my stats were nearer 60% and as predicted upgraded to intermediate. Nothing more to add as I think KS25 has kindly covered all points. 

cheers

TG

 
Forum Jump  
©2025 Prostate Cancer UK